backtop

IT Intel Responds to EU Charges
Tom Corelis (Blog) - July 28, 2007 12:03 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 105 comment(s) - last by zsdersw.. on Jul 31 at 2:24 PM
Says complaints are from AMD, not customers, and the market is doing perfectly fine.

In response to a statement of objections (SO) served by the European Commission yesterday regarding anti-competitive practices, Intel senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell issued the following statement:

"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers. While we would certainly have preferred to avoid the cost and inconvenience of establishing that our competitive conduct in Europe has been lawful, the Commission's decision to issue a Statement of Objections means that at last Intel will have the opportunity to hear and respond to the allegations made by our primary competitor.

“The case is based on complaints from a direct competitor rather than customers or consumers. The Commission has an obligation to investigate those complaints. However, a Statement of Objections contains only preliminary allegations and does not itself amount to a finding that there has been a violation of European Union law. Intel will now be given the chance to respond directly to the Commission's concerns as part of the administrative process. The evidence that this industry is fiercely competitive and working is compelling. When competitors perform and execute the market rewards them. When they falter and under-perform the market responds accordingly."

According to a 2004 article in BusinessWeek, the European Commission began investigating Intel as early as 2001, although the initial probe was dropped. Things picked up again in 2004, which culminated in a raid of Intel’s European offices in 2005.

AMD hopes the charges filed will benefit consumers. "We are confident that this statement of objections will be a catalyst in opening the global microprocessor markets for the benefit of consumers and PC companies alike,” says AMD EMEA president Giuliano Meroni.

AMD has filed complaints in numerous countries accusing Intel of behavior that has hurt AMD’s ability to compete on a level playing field. A series of documents (PDF) filed in US courts detail numerous accusations, including Intel’s supposed attempts to conditionally offer volume discounts for near-exclusivity, and delaying OEM product launches that contained competing hardware.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/28/2007 1:46:04 AM , Rating: 1
I've always been a bit afraid of how large companies seem to run the US. To begin with, the patent office is no longer run by the government, it was according to my sources, sold to the highest bidder. With that, a series of pending patents, so called novel and sound. Just got approved. And today, there are so many idiotic patents in the US, it forces me to think twice, before even considering relocating, to work there.

With Intel running what seem to be a ~70-80% market share, I really don't care if they supposedly play a fair game. Something close to a monopoly, never benefits customers. It's true that Intel is one gigantic manufacturer, and that they have performed very well since the launch of Core2. However, I cannot stress this enough: what would Intel have done, If AMD had not gained market share with the K8.

A single manufacture with no real enemies is playing a game without rules. Dictating its own set of rules, is something which never ends up being challenging. And maybe in an ideal world you wouldn't need to be challenged, but the fact is, only under pressure, and with high stakes at the table, can you really expect to excel.

I really hope that the EU now, won’t let this go unpunished, and as I said before, when a company gets as much power as Intel. They should be stopped, to allow other companies to co-exist. And it's not like Intel would feel the difference, if they continue to perform, the market would remain in their pocket. While many might think dominating the market is the goal of any company, I disagree entirely. Kick large companies in the head, because it will force them to rethink their business strategies, and in many cases, provide the customer with even better products.




RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By leidegre on 7/28/2007 4:04:16 AM , Rating: 5
Well, Firefox gained popularity, Microsoft released IE7. Blizzard has a reputation, and players expect only the best because of that. Blizzard is also not unchallenged, and probably one of the better companies out there, and they strive under great pressure. Obviously, Intel is one hell of a microprocessor manufacturer, and they deliver great products and I never argued against that. But when things look more like a monopoly, than competitive play, I can help to think that something needs to balance that out.
I think the best way to put it is like this. Too much of something no matter what it is, is never a good thing.

And even if AMDs gain in market share, really isn’t the reason why Intel succeeded. It sure affected them, and made many people wonder.

Things are more fragile than they appear to be, and I want a mixture of things, so that I may choose between different things for my own personal and sometimes very different reasons.

As far as Intel goes, I want them to be reminded how things doesn’t always turn out the way you want, and how the world isn’t always fair. Any single corporation with vast resources has great power, and has to be reminded every now and then, about the life outside of their world.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By dgingeri on 7/28/2007 9:13:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, never benefits the customers...how so? Ever since 99, I have had great processors from Intel. Great motherboard chipsets. Nothing AMD has done has changed anything for me. I'm still paying around $300+ dollars for a processor. I'm still paying around $150 - $300 for a motherboard.


If AMD had not brought out the Athlon 64, you would be working on a 2.4ghz P4 right now. Intel was particularly slow in releasing new chips while we waited for AMD's 2 production engineers to work out the production bugs in the Sledgehammer design. It was over a year late because they didn't have enough people to work on it, Yet it was clearly a superior design.

If Intel had not used these underhanded tactics, We'd have had Barcelona last year and we'd be working on the next generation right now. AMD lost out on a lot of money because of Intel's tactics. If AMD gets out of the CPU business, we're all completely screwed. Intel would bring out a clock speed ramp every 5 years or so.

AMD has been making superior designs to Intel for a long time. Sure, the Core2 performs better for right now, but it is a half generation ahead. I would be willing to bet Barcelona at 2.3Ghz would match a Conroe at 3Ghz.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By hr824 on 7/28/2007 12:39:21 PM , Rating: 5
And you can't ingore that AMD, Nvidia, Via, SIS are the reason intel can't afford to be slackers. Competition works, and if intel is found guilty they deserve to be slapped and slapped hard.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By Screwballl on 7/28/2007 12:27:33 PM , Rating: 4
We would be using super hot space heater 3.6GHz Intel P4s on the BTX spec right now if it weren't for AMD's success.

Simply look at the publicized stories about how Dell was threatened by Intel when they wanted to go with AMD. Also why is there no motherboards with AMD chipsets for Intel procs? Or how about Crossfire ATi compatible chipsets (which is very few as nvidia and Intel have been bedfellows for some time)?

Year after year Intel takes AMDs ideas and makes them their own (AMD64/EM64T anyone?). Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company. Competition is multiple companies using different methods to provide similar or the same service to others. The keywords are DIFFERENT METHODS (read IBM and VIA). If Intel is taking AMDs tech specs towards their own use and blocking distributors from supplying AMD parts, wheres the competitiveness in that? I hope Intel gets a big boot in the rear. It is nice seeing the underdog get a rib jab on the big mean dog.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 12:52:42 PM , Rating: 1
> "I hope Intel gets a big boot in the rear. It is nice seeing the underdog get a rib jab on the big mean dog"

That pretty much sums up the motivations behind this case. Its an emotional response to the "underdog syndrome".


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/2007 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Year after year Intel takes AMDs ideas and makes them their own (AMD64/EM64T anyone?). Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company.


Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your premise is true; that Intel takes AMD's ideas and makes them their own. Is AMD doing the same thing with Barcelona when they add to the K8 various features found in Core 2? If your premise is true, the answer is yes.

quote:
Intel continues to takes ideas from others and use them against the originating company.


So does AMD, and so does every company in virtually every business. It's a little thing called "competition".

quote:
Competition is multiple companies using different methods to provide similar or the same service to others.


Since when does the definition of competition fit into those narrow parameters? That's a first.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By TomCorelis (blog) on 7/28/2007 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't the two companies have a technology-sharing pact? If I remember correctly it was one of the provisions of an old anti-trust suit or something like that. The details are fuzzy.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/28/2007 6:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
They have a cross-licensing agreement, yes.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By KnightProdigy on 7/29/2007 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.
Intel has the funding to bring things to market ahead of competitors. AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap. Yet they will probably bring the first products to spin.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By masher2 (blog) on 7/29/2007 6:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap"

Err, Fusion is state of the art, circa 1992, back when all graphics processing was done within the CPU. Companies like 3dfx pioneered the independent GPU, fought by Intel every step of the way.

Is AMD taking a great step forward or backwards with Fusion? I have my doubts personally, but in either case, the idea is certainly nothing new.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By KnightProdigy on 7/29/2007 5:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.
Intel has the funding to bring things to market ahead of competitors. AMD announced Fusion LONG before Intel even had IGP on die on the roadmap. Yet they will probably bring the first products to spin.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By zsdersw on 7/29/2007 9:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever since 3D Now!, Intel has been playing catch up, releasing ideas originally thought of by other players.


Wrong. Intel is more than caught up.. they're ahead.

As for "ideas originally thought of by other players", I suppose you'd be quiet about AMD's inclusion in Barcelona many features found in Core 2.


RE: Srew Intel to the wall
By afkrotch on 7/28/2007 6:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
By the time the 3.6 ghz P4 was out, Intel already knew Netburst was on it's last legs. The swap to 65nm brought it under control, but it would never have survived anymore speed increases.

If you have an agreement with a company to sell your products, who wouldn't get mad if they wanted to sell someone else's product. If they made an agreement of giving a nice discount on each proc/chipset/etc for not selling a competitor's product and the other side decided to back out, it's simply natural to no longer give a discount. It's called business.

As for AMD chipsets for Intel...they suck. That's why they are barely around. When they came out, they blew ass when compared to an Intel chipset or even an Nvidia chipset. Shoot, VIA/Sis had better chipsets than the POS AMD chipsets. If you want, there's always the current DFI Lanparty UT mobo. Uses an AMD chipset and supports Intel's latest procs. Oh...it also blows ass in the performance field. A mobo from ECS has higher performance. Not only does the board suck, but it costs $180. Tell me...who the hell cares about AMD chipsets?

So year after year Intel takes AMD's ideas. So what is it that AMD does, when they support MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, SSSE3? They are instruction sets and they are shared between companies. That's not competition, that's just business. No company would program with a specific instruction set if both procs didn't support it.

Shoot, look at MMX. AMD took MMX and attached their 3DNow! to it, cause the K6 sucked at floating point calcs. 3DNow! Pro was nothing more than SSE1 and Enhanced 3DNow! combined.

Here's something for ya. The x86 architecture was an Intel idea. So what is an x86 proc from AMD? Isn't it nothing more than AMD taking an Intel idea and making it their own? It's it nothing more than AMD taking the idea from someone else and using it against the originating company.